|
|
|
|
|
TITLE: No Mutual Understanding |
AUTHOR: David Kimche |
PUB: Jerusalem Post |
DATE: April, 16 2001 |
|
One of the most compelling characteristics of this second intifada is the complete and utter miscomprehension on both sides of the divide with regard to the aims and attitudes of the other side. Israelis, including most of the peace camp, cannot comprehend why the Palestinians rejected so forcefully the hand that was held out to them by former prime minister Ehud Barak. Explanations vary from "the true face of the Palestinians has been revealed" to "the Palestinians don't want peace"; from "the Palestinians will never accept the existence of a Jewish state in Israel" to "Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is not capable of making peace." For most Israelis, Arafat is the villain who refused to accept any compromise for peace. Opinions differ widely with regard to Arafat's role and his intentions. Did he plan the intifada or did it start spontaneously in a similar manner to the first intifada? Is he capable of controlling the violence or has he lost control of the Palestinian "street"? What is his end-game - internationalization of the conflict? Indefinite continuation of the struggle? Or peace on better terms than was offered to him? Above all, Israelis are asking themselves whether he can still be considered a partner for peace. There are no clear answers. According to press reports there exist widely differing evaluations between the General Security Services and Military Intelligence about how the intifada was ignited, and the intentions of the Palestinians in general. Senior ministers consider Arafat a terrorist who has no intention of reaching any peace accord. Other senior ministers aver that Arafat is still a partner in peace. Most Israelis have very little concept or understanding of what the Palestinians want, or what life for them entails under occupation. There is a similar lack of understanding on the Palestinian side. For many, their image of an Israeli is that of the hooligan-fringe of the settlers, for there are many more provocations initiated by the settlers than is reported in the Israeli media. The image of Israelis full of hatred for the Palestinians has now been reinforced by the recent statement of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef calling on God to annihilate Arabs. The Palestinians are convinced that Israel does not want peace, that it wants to perpetuate the occupation. They point to Israel's failure to implement the major clauses of the Oslo Agreement as proof of its lack of sincerity in pursuing peace. Israel, they claim, did not implement the withdrawal clauses, did not release prisoners, did not abide by the timetable for reaching a full peace, and continued to expand settlements which, while not prohibited under Oslo, has been, in their eyes, counter to the spirit of seeking peace and is proof that Israel does not intend to give up the territories in order to reach a peace agreement. Above all, their expectation that Oslo would bring an end to the occupation has not occurred; indeed, more than any other factor, it was the tremendous frustration that the continuing occupation generated which led to the outpouring of violence and the renewed intifada. To this last claim the Israeli would reply: "The occupation could have ended and many of the settlements been disbanded if you had accepted Barak's offer of more than 90% of the territories." And the Palestinian would answer: "At Oslo we agreed for the first time to recognize your right to 78% of Palestine while we would make do with the remaining 22%. That was our compromise for peace. As a gesture to you at Camp David we did agree to your having enclaves for your settlers provided you give us an equivalent amount of land in Israel in exchange. That was not accepted by you." The Palestinians are convinced that an agreement could have been reached and still can be attained. Contrary to general belief in Israel, the Palestinians do want peace, based, however, on the 22%, and that includes the Arab quarters of East Jerusalem. They say that just as Sadat got back every inch of Egyptian territory and was not willing to compromise even on Taba, and the Jordanians likewise were given back Jordanian lands that Israel had occupied, so, too, they demand similar treatment. As for the vexed questions of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, and of the Temple Mount, both former US president Bill Clinton and the Israeli negotiators were convinced that a solution could have been found provided the rest of the package had been put together. Where will it all end? Both sides are convinced that all the wrongdoing is on the other side. However, they are beginning to understand two basic elements of the conflict: Violence will not bring results for the Palestinians, and there are no military solutions for the Israelis. There are already indications that the violence may be lessening. When the gunfire is eventually silenced, Palestinians and Israelis will have to go back to the negotiating table and there they will discover that there are no viable solutions other than the one proposed by Clinton. The alternative will be a resumption of violence and the vicious cycle will continue until eventually both sides accept the inevitability that both peoples will have to live side by side in peace in this small piece of land, Israel and Palestine. END |